Why Did Ww1 Soldiers Fight For Rewards?

In World War one, even though trenchlife was so miserable, soldiers kept on fighting. I understand that some of it is patriotism, others for their friends, or they were forced to, but I've heard that some soldiers fought because they got rewards and had a better lifestyle.

So what sort of rewards did they get? What sort of different lifestyle did they have, which was better (eg food)? How did this encourage them to carry on fighting?

youare right to identify that there are a number of reasons why soldiers stayed to fight Falora. For each soldier their own motivations would have been different.

For many wages and lifestyle were important:

~ In many parts of britain there was a large amount of poverty and unemployment in the 1910's (and lots of strikes over poor wages and conditions), and a soldier's wages were often higher than those of unskilled workers

~ For many workers it was a chance to escape from the terrible working conditions, especially those who worked in coalmines and other very physical and dangerous jobs

Also the lifestyle was not always as bad as the popular myth would have it:

~ The average British soldier gained over a stone in weight during their training after they signed up. the food and conditions were often much better than they experienced at home

~ Also remember that soldiers did not spend all of their time in the frontline trenches. They had spells in the support and reserve trenches, and away from the trenches completely in 'billets' or even back home on holiday. In fact on average they only spent about 20% of their time in the frontline

~ For many soldiers the prospect of actually going into battle was a rarity. The average British batallion spent only 20 days out of the whole war fighting in battles

This is an excellent question! You have hit on one of the key areas which military historians have debated in the last twenty years.

It used to be thought that soldiers fought mainly for reasons to do with their gender. They did not want to be shown up in front of their mates or buddies. This is partly why military training encourages "male bonding" and the "buddy system". It is also a reason why commanders in the various armies today will not consider the possibility of women becoming front line troops.

Other historians have claimed that in some wars at least, a soldier's beliefs have been important. They were fighting for a cause. An example of this might be the American Civil War and WW2. Perhaps even WW1.

OK. Well, there's about seven different reasons for this - patriotism, comradeship, fear of being shot, rewards, joy of war, habit of obedience, etc. I was wondering which would be THE most important reason - and what order the others will go in.

In World War one, even though trenchlife was so miserable, soldiers kept on fighting. I understand that some of it is patriotism, others for their friends, or they were forced to, but I've heard that some soldiers fought because they got rewards and had a better lifestyle.

So what sort of rewards did they get? What sort of different lifestyle did they have, which was better (eg food)? How did this encourage them to carry on fighting?

Thank you so much.

I'm continuing this thread because it raises lots of interesting questions. When motivation of soldiers in the First World War is discussed, it generally concentrates on why soldiers 'joined up'. However, Falora's question focused on improving motivation during the rest of the war.

The British certainly felt that rewards for soldiers encouraged them. They awarded large numbers of existing medals and decorations (such as the Victoria Cross and the Distinguished Service Order) as well as introducing new ones (e.g the Military Cross for officers in 1914 and the Military Medal for soldiers in 1916). Thousands of medals were awarded during the First World War. Other distinctions were available as well such as the 'Mention in Despatches' (M.i.D.) where a soldier's or officer's name was publihsed on an official list. However, the effectiveness of encouraging soldiers is hard to judge. I feel that it is most unlikely that most recipients of medals acted as they did so they could get a medal. There were probably a few 'glory-hunters' but most soldiers did brave things for different reasons, including helping their friends, survival or 'just doing their job'. Furthermore, fighters in the front line often felt that officers safe behind the lines seemed to win more medals than the men at the front. However, overall it was a mark of honour to be awarded a gallantry medal.

A lesser-known reward was a certificate awarded by formations at Corps, Division or Brigade level or by individual units to officers and soldiers who had not been awarded a medal but had served particularly well or bravely. These awards were not 'official' in the way of the medals mentioned above, but enough survive in museum collections to show that they were important to some soldiers. It was a way of showing a soldier that his contribution was valued.

Promotions were given as a reward for service. Private soldiers could be promoted to non-commissioned officer and, later in the war, sent for officer training. Officers who did well could also be promoted. However, such promotions were not usual and most men rose in the army only through length of service. Not all soldiers wanted to be promoted, as becoming a corporal set you apart from your friends. However, promotion meant higher status and more pay so it was an incentive for some.

Unless you were lucky enouggh to be posted away from the front, living conditions for 'decorated' and 'ordinary' soldiers were the same.

These comments refer to the British Army. All armies had systems of medals and decorations. However, some such as the German army, did not tend to promote officers in the same way.

I personally believe that 'small-unit cohesion', supporting your mates, and expectations of honour and duty were more important than rewards, but that's just my opinion; and another story.

Hey. Soldiers were motivated to keep fighting by using a rotation system. This meant that soldiers looked forward to going back to the billets and enjoying hot food while staying in the relative safety.

Soldiers at the front enjoyed much better food than they would have got at home. They received fresh meat, bread, corned beef, army tea, tobacco and biscuits. They were given 4000 calories a day and soldiers gained over 2.5cm in height and 6kg in weight within a month after joining up.

Well, you have already found the best thread to use, I think. It gives you a variety of points and includes some statistics (in fact you provide them with the information about soldiers' food). Which motivation was most important is a matter for you to decide, depending on your interpretation. In other words, what your teacher will be looking for is the ability to argue your case effectively, rather than one right answer.

You are obviously good at research, so I think that finding some statistics on how many soldiers deserted (and how many were shot for desertion) would provide you with good evidence. With regard to the relative values of each point, you would need to explain how many soldiers were fighting. For example, if 1000 British soldiers deserted during the First World War, that would seem to be a large number. However, if there were one million soldiers in the BEF then that's only 1% of the strength which doesn't seem quite so much. You will need to find the figures, don't go on what I have said, it's just to illustrate my argument.

Are you just going to look at the British Army, and only the Western Front? The food argument doesn't always hold up, but rotation was very important. The French Army didn't rotate units in the same way, which was one of the reasons why they had large-scale mutinies in 1917.

Right then, over to you. Get back to us if you have specific questions and we will see what we can do to help.

You will see that your question is now in the 14-16 forum. There is no direct comparison between end of Key Stage levels and GCSE, but I would agree that a target of 8a is definitely working to a high-level GCSE standard.

Thanks for that. I think that I will stick with the fact that they fought for their friends and the officers and put that in my conclusion, but directly relate it back to the question and build a counterargument and then deflect it and say why that was one of the main points, along with patriotism and punishment.

I was thinking of doing what this teacher put on how to structure an essay and do a plenary saying what motivated men to carry on fighting in the trenches and comparing it to what motivated men in previous conflicts and the similarities and differences.

In addition, I am going to compare it to today and see what factors are still important.

Do you think that will be enough to justify my reason if I explain my conclusion properly and then do the plenary? What grade do you think I would get if I did a really good argument and explained each case in the middle bit of the essay and then did that?

Thanks in advance,

historyhampster

P.S Thanks to all the moderators who give up their time to help me in these really long, slightly annoying after 5 days of working and researching kind of assessments. Quick responses for my last minute tweaks in my essays are always appreciated.